Winston Churchill... A carrot ???

[Dwarf]

Did you know that Winston Churchill is a carrot? Here's the proof.

Let a=1 and b=1

Now b^2=ab (Equation 1)

Since a equals itself, it is obvious that a^2=a^2 (Equation 2)

Subtract Equation 1 from Equation 2 yields a^2-b^2=a^2-ab (Equation 3)

Let's factorise both sides of Equation 3 (a+b)(a-b)=a(a-b) (Equation 4)

Divide both sides of Equation 4 by the common denominator (a-b) yields a+b=a (Equation 5)

Subtract a from both sides and we get b=0 (Equation 6)

If you recall, we set b=1 at the begining of this proof. Therefore 1=0 (Equation 7)

Now here comes the crux of the proof that Winston Churchill (hereafter referred to as WC) is a carrot.

We know that WC has one head. But Equation 7 states one equals zero, so WC has no head. Likewise, WC has no leafy tops, so by the same equation WC has one leafy top.

If we multiply Equation 7 by 2 we get 2=0 (Equation 8)

From Equation 8 WC has two arms, therefore WC has no arms. Likewise, WC has two legs, therefore WC has no legs.

We now multiply Equation 7 by WC's waist size: Waist Size=0 (Equation 9)

This means that WC tapers to a point.

Now for the colour. Take any ray of light emanating from him and select a photon. Multiply Equation 7 by the wavelength of the photon and we see that WC's Photon Wavelength=0 (Equation 10)

Multiply both sides of Equation 7 by the wavelength of an orange photon yields 640=0 (Equation 11)

Combine Equations 10 and 11 WC's Photon Wavelength=640

Therefore, any photon emanating from WC is orange.

Summing up, we have proved the following mathematically.

1) WC has no arms or legs.
2) Instead of a head, he has a leafy top.
3) He tapers to a point.
4) He is bright orange.

By all intents and purposes, therefore, it is clear that WC is a carrot.

Q.E.D.

 

[Product FRED]

lolwut?

 

[z3r010]

Wow how times have changed, all that mathematics to see one of our former PM's is a carrot. I only have to turn the TV on to see our current one is a turnip.

 

[Thorsen]

Wrong: (a+b)(a-b)=a(a-b) (Equation 4)

Correct: (a+b)(a-b)= a^2-ab+ab-b^2 = a^2-b^2

Another Edit: This is done in many forms to try and prove that 1=0, but it is at this point that I always see this failure.

Likewise, the formula "(a+b)(a-b)= " deontes, that there are two answers to the formula in that there are two possible outcomes a+b and a-b... thus two different answers for this fomula either subracting b or adding b. a will never yeild the same result unless b=0

 

[Dwarf]

Wow how times have changed, all that mathematics to see one of our former PM's is a carrot. I only have to turn the TV on to see our current one is a turnip.

Isn't that an insult to turnips?

 

[Barman58]

Wrong: (a+b)(a-b)=a(a-b) (Equation 4)

Correct: (a+b)(a-b)= a^2-ab+ab-b^2 = a^2-b^2 = (a-b)^2

Which probably means He's not a carrot, but an off color Banana

 

[Pieloi]

*BSOD's*

 

[Thorsen]

for all points and purposes, he might be a carrot, but not by this formula's setup

 

[Little Darwin]

Wrong: (a+b)(a-b)=a(a-b) (Equation 4)

Correct: (a+b)(a-b)= a^2-ab+ab-b^2 = a^2-b^2

Another Edit: This is done in many forms to try and prove that 1=0, but it is at this point that I always see this failure.

Likewise, the formula "(a+b)(a-b)= " deontes, that there are two answers to the formula in that there are two possible outcomes a+b and a-b... thus two different answers for this fomula either subracting b or adding b. a will never yeild the same result unless b=0

I don't quite understand the last paragraph... Are you saying that the two terms in (a+b)(a-b) = ???? can only mean two roots? If so, there are many polynomials with a single root. Or more properly I guess two identical roots.

Actually Equation 4 is correct if a=b... The biggest error comes in the following step.

if a=b then a-b=0 and equation 5 is derived by dividing both sides by zero, which is not defined.

Of course if a=b, equation 4 can be reduced to 0=0 which is perfectly valid, but applying undefined functions makes the proof invalid.

 

[Lordbob75]

Actually, this is dividing by zero.

Which makes the world implode.

Thereby proving he is a carrot.

~Lordbob

 

[noobvious]

lolwut?

+1. Mathematics, not one of my strong suits. So that whole post may as well be Attic Greek to me.

 

[smarteyeball]

I didn't need maths to prove he was a carrot.

I merely watched a giant rabbit pluck him from the ground and eat him to confirm my theory...

 

[Thorsen]

The only way to get 1=0 is to use i which is an imaginary number representing the squareroot of -1. This is still an imaginary number and it cant exist in the real world, there is still no real world way of making 1=0.

 

[Thorsen]

Wrong: (a+b)(a-b)=a(a-b) (Equation 4)

Correct: (a+b)(a-b)= a^2-ab+ab-b^2 = a^2-b^2

Another Edit: This is done in many forms to try and prove that 1=0, but it is at this point that I always see this failure.

Likewise, the formula "(a+b)(a-b)= " deontes, that there are two answers to the formula in that there are two possible outcomes a+b and a-b... thus two different answers for this fomula either subracting b or adding b. a will never yeild the same result unless b=0

I don't quite understand the last paragraph... Are you saying that the two terms in (a+b)(a-b) = ???? can only mean two roots? If so, there are many polynomials with a single root. Or more properly I guess two identical roots.

Actually Equation 4 is correct if a=b... The biggest error comes in the following step.

if a=b then a-b=0 and equation 5 is derived by dividing both sides by zero, which is not defined.

Of course if a=b, equation 4 can be reduced to 0=0 which is perfectly valid, but applying undefined functions makes the proof invalid.

Lol, my math is not what it used to be. you are correct the roots can be two seperate things as this setup would work in reverse:

(4)(2)= 8
(3+1)(3-1)=8
a=3, b=1
(a+b)(a-b)=8 so this works

Edit: the biggest flaw is still the use of foil as the original example I stated though:

Wrong: (a+b)(a-b)=a(a-b) (Equation 4) {this leads to the result posted: aa-ab= a(a-b)}

Correct: (a+b)(a-b)= a^2-ab+ab-b^2 = a^2-b^2

 

[smarteyeball]

Perhaps the biggest flaw is that when you define by using arbitrary parameters, you can use maths to prove anything - even if it's simply not true:

 

[derekimo]

lolwut?

+1. Mathematics, not one of my strong suits. So that whole post may as well be attic greek to me.

math hurts...